RE:So much fabricated rubbishTeflon2Hype wrote: Are reverse splits good or bad?.
Whether a reverse split (Consolidation) is good or bad is totally dependant on the motivation of the company for doing it.
If a company has achieved sustained profitability then the market knows they no longer need to raise funds by share issuance so it is viewed purely as house cleaning and is treated favourably.
If a company is not profitable then the market knows that it is conceding that profitability is not in the near future (Capitulating) so they need to get the share count down to raise operating funds by offering more shares to the market. If the company's share price is below 5 cents then the need is compounded due to the minimum price for a share issuance being set at 5 cents unless you apply and receive some form of distress exemption. The market never treats this favourably because it is now clear to them that the company is not executing on it's promise to become profitable as they previously stated, and that the shareholders are about to get diluted down once again
....and that a honest, accurate and simplified explanation of this whole thing.
I'm not sure I follow - I thought you said earlier today that they would have to do an equity raise to meet loan conditions?
"
Loan interest rates are based on security and that is why I figured that the creditor would have demanded an equity raise to lower their D/E but obviously they did not. Why not?..Well once again that document is a secret. Read more at https://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard?symbol=v.pyd&postid=25331004#VE6B8lcwk83Vfl6X.99"
Aren't loan interest rates also based on the type of debt instrument, whether convertible (lower) or non-dilutive (higher)?
I really have no interest in going back and forth with you on this, Teflon2Hype. My only interest is in communicating as clearly as I can with current and potential investors the shape of the company and its realistic prospects for future growth. That's a sentiment I share with their management and board.
Regarding your earlier statement that I'm compensated to positively represent the company and that I'm biased, everyone should know that I sought Peter's permission to occcassionly post on this board, but only with responses to what I thought were incorrect, misleading, defamatory or otherwise detrimental posts. He said that it was fine if I did, but there was no expectation that I do so. I take and make phone calls for them, I set up investor meetings, I write their press releases etc., and I present myself as who I am.
I don't have any interest in "hyping" Poydras, nor does anyone else attached to the company. My compensation is flat-fee and not tied in any way to equity performance.
Have a great day, T2H, and feel free to call or email anytime, either myself or management.
Keith
krichards@national.ca